Supporting the appointment of a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which we have already considered in this Congress, poses a real threat to the lives and health of young women. It would require a minor who is pregnant, possibly as a result of parental abuse, incest, to carry the parental notification laws of her home State on her back to another State and hold doctors, grandparents, clergy and anyone else who tries to help her a criminal. The sponsors, not satisfied with extending State laws into other States, now want to enforce those State laws in other countries.

Not since the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 have we used the power of the Federal Government to enforce the laws of one State on the territory of another.

This latest crazy quilt of restrictions obviously has but one purpose, to impede the practice of medicine, to ensure that young women will have as few options as possible, to make criminals of relatives and adults, or minors, for that manner, who try to help them, and to teach those States, such as mine, that do not believe that these laws promote adolescent health, that Congress knows best and our citizens and our States do not.

Often, that adult assisting the minor is a grandparent, a sibling or member of the clergy. In some cases, the young woman may not be able to go to her parents because the parents are a danger to her.

We all agree that, ideally, a young woman faced with a choice of having abortion should go to her parents. But

in some cases she may not be able to. That is what happened to Spring Adams, a 13-year-old from Idaho. She was shot to death by her father after he found out that she planned to terminate a pregnancy, a pregnancy caused by his own act of incest. But, under this bill, anyone who helped her cross the State line to get an abortion without telling her father so she could get shot would be guilty of a crime.

This bill also uses a narrow definition of medical emergency that seems to have been lifted from one of Attorney General Gonzalez's infamous torture memos. The prohibition ``does not apply if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor because her life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself or because in the reasonable medical judgment of the minor's attending physician the delay in performing the abortion occasioned by fulfilling the prior requirement would cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the minor arising from continued pregnancy, not including psychological or emotional condition,'' so long as the physician notifies the parent within 24 hours.

The bill now also excludes ectopic pregnancies and the removal of a dead fetus, for which I suppose civilized people should be grateful.

It is progress, although it still falls far short of the protection for a woman's health required by the Constitution, which the courts have ruled requires an explicit exception to protect the life or health of the woman, not just those few conditions a few extremists find acceptable.

No mental health exception? That is the only justification for helping a young woman who has been raped by her father. There is certainly no physical risk, yet this bill would require a doctor to seek that father's permission.

There are many things far short of death or a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function that can endanger a young woman. She deserves prompt and professional medical care, and no matter how much some people don't like it, the Constitution protects her right to receive that care.

In a perfect world, loving, supportive and understanding families would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in the majority of cases, with or without a law.

But we do not live in a perfect world. Some parents are violent. Some parents are rapists. Some young people can turn only to their clergy or to a grandparent or a sibling or some other trusted adult. And this bill would turn those people into criminals.

If a 16-year-old girl was accompanied across a State line by her 16- year-old boyfriend for an abortion, this would make the boyfriend a criminal. If a rabbi or priest or minister helped her across the State line, knowing that her father or mother were violent and therefore they couldn't dare ask for parental notification, this would turn them into a criminal. The same thing with a grandfather or a brother or a sister. We should not be turning people who are helping people in distress into criminals. That is wrong.

This bill, although slightly modified, is as wrong and as dangerous today as it was when this House considered this last time.

There is another thing, too. We believe in 50 different States in this country. We believe in State sovereignty within the Federal limits. We call the States laboratories of democracy.

Many States, I think more than half, have chosen to have parental consent notification laws. Other States have chosen not to. We ought to respect the States that have chosen not to, as well as those that have chosen to do so. And to say that because someone comes from a State with a parental notification law, if she goes to a State without a parental notification law, someone who helps her to go there is committing a crime, I think that is unconstitutional and is a violation of the right to interstate commerce, to interstate travel.

But it also, as I said before, is an attempt to say to New York, which does not require parental notification and consent, that the law of some other State which does must prevail in your State as long as the person comes from that State. She can't escape it. She carries it with her on her back.

We have never tried to enforce the laws of one State in another like that since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. It is not a good precedent. This bill deserves to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions about this bill that are completely aside from the merits. One is, why are we doing this bill? We passed the bill earlier. We passed essentially this bill earlier this session, the Senate passed a bill, and now we are passing a bill that isn't the same as the Senate bill. Why? So that no law, so nothing becomes law this year.

So I would like to ask the chairman, the distinguished chairman, why we are not passing the same bill the Senate passed? Because, otherwise, there is no possibility, as I see it, of getting an agreement before we leave.

I will yield.

Then why are we passing a bill again that we already passed earlier this year if the Senate bill is not the same and is not satisfactory?

Reclaiming my time. In other words, we pass the bill, the Senate passed a different bill which the distinguished chairman thinks has

many loopholes, and may have, I haven't read it, and so we are coming back.

Here we are, the last week before we adjourn, we haven't passed any of the appropriations bills into law, not one, and we are spending time on this bill when we have already passed it. And if the Senate has not passed it and they want to, they should negotiate with the Senate, they should have a conference committee. Instead, we are passing it again.

And I have to assume that the real reason we are doing it is just for political reasons, to rev up the troops of the antiabortion people for the election, and there is no real intent to pass a bill.

I have another question. This bill says in the key line: Whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line with the intent that such minor obtains an abortion, blah, blah shall be fined or imprisoned.

My question, sir, and I will yield to you, is what does ``transport'' mean?

Well, then reclaiming my time, I think that this bill is simply not very well drafted in that case, because in the Mann Act certain things are obvious.

Let's assume that you have a young woman and a young man, her boyfriend, who jointly go across State lines to get her an abortion. She is driving. She is transporting him, not the other way around. Should someone be guilty or not guilty depending on who is driving and who is not driving? That doesn't seem to make sense.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments against this bill are manifold.

Number one, the arguments against parental notification and consent are where you have a violent parent or where you have a parent that the child cannot confide in, you shouldn't require that. Ninety percent of the time there is no problem, it is fine. Sometimes there is, and you risk the life or the health of the child to require that she tell the parent that she is pregnant.

Number two, in such a situation, the child may confide, hopefully, there is someone she can confide in, her brother, her sister, her best friend, her clergyman, her teacher, and we would make them criminals if they help her.

The gentleman from New Jersey talked about the abortionist conspiring to take her across State lines. It is not the abortionist. It is a friend or a colleague or a clergyman or a grandparent. You shouldn't make criminals of them. Nor should we seek to enforce the law of one State in another State.

And. Finally, and after this statement I will yield, this law also says that if someone is asked to perform, if a doctor is asked to perform an abortion on a young woman, on a minor from another State, he must notify the parents in that State whether or not that State requires parental notification. So we are expanding, we are now putting the Federal Government and saying to a State when only two States are involved, neither which have a parental notification law, you must because we say so. There is no justification for that.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Reclaiming my time. I can understand that particular concern if this bill made it a crime to transport a minor across State lines for the purpose of getting an abortion, et cetera, et cetera, for money. If that person transporting that young girl were being paid to do it, then I think that there might be something we would want to do about that. But we are not talking about that. Well, we may be talking about that, but the bill is certainly not limited to that.

The bill applies to the situation where the person, quote, unquote, transporting her may be her boyfriend, her brother or sister, her grandmother, her uncle, her aunt, her best friend or clergyman or a teacher. Anyone who is doing it with the best motives to help her, with whom some of us here may disagree that that is the best motive, but it is not a predatory motive.

So if you want to write a bill against a predatory person, write a bill against the predatory person. Write a bill against someone who does it for a commercial reason, for pay, but not against all these other people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, some States have chosen to enact parental consent and notification laws, others haven't. There is a case against parental notification laws and consent laws because basically there are a certain number of parents, certain families where you can't ask the young girl to confide in her parents because they may subject her to violence. Or she feels she can't.

But you do want a young woman to confide in somebody, not to be alone in this time of great strain for her. You want her to be able to confide in a brother or sister or clergyman or priest or rabbi or uncle or aunt or grandparent or a teacher. And those people want to be able to help her.

Now, as I said before, there may be room for legislation to say that you shouldn't take people across State lines for the purpose of getting an abortion for commercial purposes.

But to make a criminal out of anybody who is trying to help a young girl, as they see helping her, as she sees helping her because she cannot confide in her parents, and especially if that helper may be the grandparent or the brother or the sister or a clergyman is simply wrong.

So this legislation is far too broad. It will place young women who need help in a situation where they cannot get help. It doesn't serve any useful purpose, and it should be defeated.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues that are listening to this debate will probably claim its defining moment as redundancy. It is redundant because this is a bill that has been debated and discussed, and now it is an amendment to S. 403 which creates a lack of opportunity for any legislative initiative to get to the President's desk.

Far be it for any of us who happen to be parents and have young women as daughters in our family to try to allow legislation to drive a barrier between a child and her parents. Nor can we morally allow the creation of chilling factors that prevent a youth from seeking help when they desperately need it. There lies the angst and the confusion and the misrepresentation of this debate.

This is not a helpful legislative initiative. This is, in fact, a divisive initiative because we find that more than 61 percent of parents in States without mandatory parental consent or at least 61 percent with notice laws have knowledge of their daughter's pregnancy. The normal relationship of child and parent proceeds along a very helpful manner as long as we do not provide unnecessary intrusion beyond what has been accepted by the individual States.

The State of Texas has provided that kind of barrier. Twenty-three States have, but another 23 have not committed to dividing parent from child.

The greatest downside of this particular legislation is that it doesn't come to this floor with clean hands. If it did, it would have allowed us to have amendments, and this was a closed rule.

I offered just a year ago or so an amendment with Mr. Nadler that expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions in this act of being able to assist a young lady in her time of trouble, to give exemptions to clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, and first cousins, family members and clergy that would be giving comfort to this particular individual who may be a victim of incest or rape and afraid and confused about the utilization or the act of going to their parents. Although I said that 61 percent do have that relationship, there may be others that don't.

And so that would have been a responsible approach so that clergy would not become felons, as well as godparents and aunts or uncles, close family members. This country is used to and welcomes an extended family, families of different configurations. And so this legislation attempts to ignore that.

And, sadly, what it does is it makes a political point just days away from elections, but it doesn't help our young people who may be suffering with the decision that they have to make. It may be because of incest or rape, or maybe they have been brutalized or they may be frightened, and the comfort this particular relative can give them is the kind of nurturing advice that will help them make a right decision.

Maybe we want to subject our young people who may be subjected to decisions by parents who are forcing an abortion. It happens on either side, and it happened in the case of a 19-year-old girl from Maine because she was impregnated by an incarcerated person. So this is not a question of getting an abortion or not getting an abortion. This is a question of imploding family relations, and also altering the health system of America.

It is a health issue. It is a health issue if the individual is injured, a health issue if it is jeopardizing the life of the young lady. And the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association, all oppose mandatory involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians.

So we are being redundant because this is around and around and around. This is over and over again. But there is no sincerity in passing this legislation because instead of taking S. 403, we have offered an alternative. That alternative will have to go back to the Senate. There is some tongue-in-cheek comment about we hope the Senate will consider our bill. Well, they are four days before the end of the session before we go off for our work in the district. Then, of course, there is a lame duck because this majority, Republican majority, has not finished its work, as usual. I don't think this is a reality that is going to happen.

My prayer is that we will come together for the young people and for those impacted by this great tragedy and allow families to make decisions as they should. Vote down this bill. It serves no purpose, and it hurts the young people of America and divides families.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the legislation before the House, S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. The provisions contained within this proposal are very inflexible and unreasonably punitive.

Given the usual slant of my good colleagues on the other side of the aisle to favor uniformity in legislation, this bill is inconsistent with that purpose. Overall, S. 403 would force physicians to learn and enforce 49 other States' laws with respect to parental-involvement requirements. On its face, one of the policies that this bill seeks to enforce, the mandate that every parent will receive notice and can get involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy, is a good one. However, one of its harmful effects is that it is unnecessarily punitive. In the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, young women come to their parents before or while they consider abortion. A study found that 61 percent of parents in States without mandatory parental consent or notice laws had knowledge of their daughter's pregnancy.

Major health associations such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association strongly oppose mandatory parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. This legislation poses such a risk by increasing the risk of harm to adolescents by obstructing their access to healthcare that could save their lives.

In addition, well-respected organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Pro Choice America, and People for the American Way have expressed their opposition to this bill, which effectively isolates young women in need of help, and forces to seek alternative illegal and unsafe venues for terminating their pregnancy. After all, if you cannot trust your parents or your doctor to help you, what are your alternatives?

According to an article by Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, only 13 percent of U.S. counties have abortion providers. Therefore, the fact that many young women seek abortions outside of their home state is not solely attributable to an avoidance of home state law.

The last time we saw this bill, I offered an amendment with Mr. Nadler of New York that expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions of this act to include ``conduct by clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins.'' This amendment was a very simple but necessary dampening of the excessive punitive nature of this legislation. This amendment is also demonstrative of the negative consequences this bill would directly and inadvertently cause. A young woman should not lose her right to seek counsel and guidance from a member of the clergy, her godparent, or the family member if she so desires.

The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My state, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follow old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a Federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across State lines for abortion services if a woman comes from a State with a strict parental- involvement mandate. There are 10 States (CO, DE, IA, ME, MD, NC, OR, SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental consent. Finally, there are 17 States (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a woman's access to abortion in this case.

Given the disparity in State law requirements for the parental- notification requirement, not giving a young woman the right to seek assistance in deciding from a member of the clergy, a godparent, or family member could increase the health risks that she faces.

Young women as a population group are more likely to seek abortion later in their pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have shown that adolescents obtain 30 percent of all abortions after the first trimester, and younger women are more likely to obtain an abortion at 21 weeks or more gestation. The provisions of S. 403 will exacerbate this dangerous trend.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will add an unnecessary layer of legality, travel time, and mandatory delay to the already difficult job that physicians have in providing quality care to their patients. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently advocated for protection of health care providers by way of tort reform. This legislation flies in the face of that initiative and is totally inconsistent with it.

We cannot let legislation drive a barrier between a child and her parents, nor can we morally allow the creation of chilling factors that prevents a youth from seeking help when it is desperately needed. I ask my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the world is in total crisis. The conflict and the devastation in the Darfur region of Sudan is abominable. I call on the President of the United States, who named Andrew Natsios at the U.N. to be the Special Envoy, that we put the full might and credibility of what we have left in our country behind the genocide that is taking place in Darfur.

You have heard the numbers. Atrocities, government-sponsored terrorism, where the President of Sudan does not even acknowledge not only the U.N. forces, not only the African coalition that is there to help secure his people, but that genocide and the killings really exist.

I was on one of the delegations that went to Sudan earlier this year in a bipartisan, bicameral visit. It was outrageous what we saw. Yet, today, as the heightened conflict, killings, this government in Khartoum is now dropping bombs on the civilian population in the refugee camps. Just think about it. They have run them out of their villages. They have burned their villages. They have raped the women. They killed the men and had the children in total chaos and asking for help.

We are the most powerful Nation in the world today. We say that all the time. We must rise up to save the young children, the women, and the men for the sake of their own country.

President al-Bashir has turned his head on it. The Janjaweed, men on horses who ride herd on those villages, kill people, innocent civilians, it could be you, but you are living in another country.

I am asking tonight that we recognize the genocide, the horrific conditions that are going on in Darfur, which is in the southwest region of Sudan. Sudan is the largest country geographically in Africa. It has black Africans, African Arabs and others in the country.

Khartoum in the northern part of the country is where the seat of government is. They just recently signed a

southwest agreement in Darfur that they might be better, and better take care of their people, which they are not doing.

The security is deteriorating. There is a credible threat of famine that exists. More and more people are going hungry and starving, and the world relief food efforts are not able to get to the people who have been run off of their land.

The cease-fire is in shambles. The U.N. peacekeeping authority must keep in, and President al-Bashir is not letting them in.

Rise up. We need the Nations that surround the Sudan to speak up.

Egypt President Mubarak, I have been a strong supporter of Egypt, and I still will be, but you must speak up. You must do more. You and I have talked about this. You must do more.

Jordan, King Abdullah, you have got to get involved. You have got to get involved. People are dying as we speak.

The region must rise up. How can you let this happen one more time in any part of the world? These are people who cultivate and live and grow food before this atrocity which now has outlasted any other, including Rwanda, in terms of its devastation and loss of life.

The Chad-Sudan border that I visited on another occasion is overwhelmed by the people who are fleeing Sudan. Do we want to keep the chaos going? Do we not really have to sign up as God's people, one Nation under God and treat all of His people the same?

We have the authority, we have the power, and we have the partnerships to bring this to a conclusion. So I join my CBC colleagues this evening and ask that America rise up, that the Middle East region speak out to help people who cannot help themselves.

I want to thank Congressman Donald Payne who is the author of a resolution that we sponsored and passed, H.R. 3127. We passed it in April. We sent it to the Senate, where they sat on it. Now, I understand a Senator does not want to pass it because it was too strong. How can a resolution be strong, too strong when it is about the very subsistence of life for a people?

So I call on all good men and women of the world, Darfur needs us to step up, the people, the children, the women, the men, the villages. We can do better.

I ask that we stand and fight and speak and work, that the people in Darfur can have life and have it more abundantly.

Mr. Speaker, today the African Union agreed to extend its mandate of peacekeeping forces in Darfur through the end of the year ensuring that international troops will remain in the Sudanese province for now. I rise today to support H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. Current circumstances dictate that we develop tangible solutions, in order to provide hope to the people of Darfur. Darfurians are suffering extreme hardships. Every day is a struggle to survive for the Internally Displaced Persons, IDPs, in camps in Chad.

The Sudanese conflict in Darfur is the longest running civil war in Africa, and there are no clear signs of a negotiated resolution. President Bashir has said time and time again that he will not approve U.N. forces to come in to his country.

There are at least 2.61 million people affected by the conflict. Children no longer attend school, women face the prospects of rape, violence and death each day as they exist in refugee camps and venture outside the confines of camp for water and firewood. 70,000 people have already lost their lives. The number of displaced persons continues to expand and is estimated now at 1.9 million people.

When I say the situation is worsening, the facts reinforce the reality. Even as I stand before you, the Sudanese government is engaged in aerial bombings directed at the refugees. The Janjaweed are directing increasing bold and violent attacks, massacres of refugees. The African Union has affirmed its intention to fulfill its mandate, but it is imperative that the transition to a United Nations force be made consistent with Security Council Resolution 1706.

The world is watching as genocide engulfs victims in an African country. It appears that we did not learn the lessons that resulted from the genocide efforts that occurred in Rwanda. We vowed never to forget; yet, we are not doing enough to ensure the safety and security of innocent victims in Darfur.

It is critical to place the matter of Darfur in context. The porous border between Sudan and Chad is expected to see a massive influx of about 20,000 refugees at the expiration of the AU mandate. A number of estimates suggest that this number will be closer to 50,000 people. The World Food Program has stated unequivocally that they are incapable of providing food and assistance whenever the current crisis deteriorates. The fact of the matter is the current conflict presents a moral imperative for the world and for people of conscience. If nothing is done, there will be negative impact in neighboring countries. Many of the neighboring countries will be overextended as their limited resources are stretched to cope with the needs of the refugees.

It cannot be overemphasized that more leadership must occur in order to end the crimes against humanity occurring in Darfur. It is clear that the government of Khartoum thinks that the world, the U.N. and African and Muslim countries lack the moral resolve to tackle this issue. The countries of Egypt and Nigeria must exert their considerable influence to tackle this ever-widening problem. God and history will judge all of us harshly if we do not rescue the current victims of Janjaweed atrocities.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that genocide was occurring in Darfur, Sudan. Even with a declaration of genocide, the suffering continues.

We in the Congress have told the people of Darfur that help is on the way. The FY 07 request includes $108 million for refugee assistance, $60 million for conflict management in Sudan, $170 million for Peacekeeping Operations, PKO, which is $30 million less than the request, and approximately $70 million for Contributions to International Peacekeeping, CIPA. But these resources are far from enough.

What is required is a moral imperative and clear, decisive mandates emanating from the UN that provide blue helmet soldiers on the ground with the authority to uphold peace.

I have traveled to Darfur, and I am pained to say that the genocide occurring in Darfur is tantamount to ethnic cleansing by Arab Muslims against indigenous African Muslims. There is no escaping this reality.

In closing, it is crucial that the following occur. We must support the Special Envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, former USAID Administrator appointed by President Bush. Nonetheless, there is still a strong need for passage of the Special Envoy Resolution, H. Res. 992. This resolution not only calls for the appointment of a Special Envoy but also for that individual to have a strong mandate, staff and backing of senior administration officials. Passage of this bill will show Congressional support for the Envoy. All 4 Co-chairs of the Sudan Caucus are co-sponsors.

Finally, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, H.R. 3127, passed the House last spring. Another version of this bill, S. 1462, also passed the Senate. House and Senate staff met in April to agree on a compromise. The Senate had agreed to take up H.R. 3127. For months the bill languished. Last Monday, Senator Lugar introduced a new version of H.R. 3127. Procedurally and time-wise this presents several problems. It is crucial that Congress pass a bill that will address the plight of the victims of Sudan before we adjourn, and that, in turn, the president sign the legislation.

We must send a clear and strong message to our suffering brothers and sisters in Darfur to hold strong.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1039, I call up the Senate bill (S. 403) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill, S. 403, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. As amended by the rule, the legislation before us contains provisions substantially similar to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which overwhelmingly passed the House in April of 2005 by a vote of 270-157.

Laws that require parental notification of a minor's abortion are overwhelmingly supported by the American people. A 2005 poll by Pew Research Center found that large majorities believe that girls under 18 should receive parental consent before an abortion. According to the poll, half of self-described liberal Democrats favor requiring young women to get the consent of at least one parent before getting an abortion, and nearly three-quarters of moderate or conservative Democrats favor requiring parental consent.

Across the country, parental consent is required before performing routine medical services, such as providing aspirin, before permitting children to go on field trips or participate in contact sports, or before a minor can get a tattoo or body piercing. Yet people other than parents can secretly take children across State lines for abortion without their parents' knowledge.

The legislation we consider on the floor today addresses this absurd dichotomy by establishing clear rules to protect the health and physical safety of young girls, while safeguarding fundamental parental rights.

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or CIANA, for short, contains two central provisions. The first makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion in another State or foreign country in order to avoid a State law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. Twenty-six States currently have such parental involvement laws. This provision will prevent abusive boyfriends and older men who may have committed rape from pressuring young girls into receiving secret out-of-State abortions to keep the abuser's sexual crimes hidden from authorities.

It is crucial to emphasize that the first section of CIANA does not apply to the minors themselves, nor to their parents, nor does it apply in life-threatening emergencies that may require an immediate abortion.

The second section of CIANA contains a parental notification rule that applies in cases in which a minor is a resident of one State and presents herself for an abortion in another State that does not have a parental involvement law. In these circumstances, CIANA makes it a Federal crime for the abortion provider to fail to give one of the minor's parents or legal guardian 24 hours' notice of the minor's abortion decision before the abortion is performed. This section protects fundamental parental rights by giving parents a chance to help their young daughters in difficult circumstances. This includes giving a health care provider the daughter's medical history to ensure that she receives safe medical care.

The second section of CIANA would not apply if an applicable parental law in the State where the abortion is being performed is complied with. In addition, Section 2 would not apply if the physician is presented with documentation that a court in the minor's home State has authorized an abortion.

Further exceptions to this section include if the minor states that she has been the victim of abuse by a parent and the abortion provider informs the State authorities of such abuse, or if a life-threatening or other medical emergency requires that the abortion be performed immediately.

As previously noted, the amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 403 is substantially similar to H.R. 748 but also includes clarifying provisions adopted in the other body and other technical changes which further improve the legislation.

The amendment would prevent a parent who has committed incest from being able to obtain money damages under the bill's provisions, and it makes it a Federal crime for someone who has committed incest to transport a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion.

In addition, the substitute contains an exception to the notification requirement if a parent is physically present when the minor obtains the abortion. The amendment also makes clear that the parental notification need not be provided by the abortion provider personally but by an agent of the abortion provider.

The amendment also contains a technical change to the definition of abortion that excludes treatment for potentially dangerous pregnancies and creates a new medical emergency exception to ensure that the legislation will withstand any constitutional challenge.

Finally, it makes clear that the bill's provisions apply when State lines are crossed to enter any foreign nation or Tribal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation to protect the health and safety of America's minor daughters.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Senate bill has loopholes wide enough to drive a 18-wheeler through. If we are doing something, we might as well do something that means a bit rather than simply passing a piece of paper.

If the gentleman will further yield, this is in the hopes that the Senate will look at this modified bill in prayerful reflection and send it on to the President.

If the gentleman will yield, it means the same thing as the transportation of someone across the State line in violation of the Mann Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for a while to yield a minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is fairly simple and straightforward. It says that if a minor woman who is a resident of a State that requires some type of parental involvement is taken to another State that does not have a parental involvement law, it is a crime to do that. And it is as simple as that.

Now the only reason why a woman would be taken from a State with a parental involvement law to one that doesn't is to prevent the parents from knowing that the woman is having an

abortion. Now we are talking about minors here, girls under the age of 18. A parent is responsible for providing for the health, safety, and welfare of minor children that are either their own children or that they have been named as guardians of by a competent court; and to avoid the parents' responsibility of providing medical care by hiding the fact that the woman is going across a State line to have an abortion is wrong.

Now I think a lot of people don't like parental involvement laws. The polling shows exactly the opposite. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that half the people who call themselves liberal Democrats believe that the parents ought to be involved in this decision; and three- quarters of those who call themselves moderate or conservative Democrats feel the same way.

I think that this House ought to empower parents to at least know about these decisions, particularly if their minor daughters are taken across a State line; and the way to deal with that issue is to pass the bill.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.

As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this ``medical'' procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the States. In the name of protecting parental rights, this bill usurps States' rights by creating yet another Federal crime.

Our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Our Nation's history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents' rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.

This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more Federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.'' Meese stated that Congress' tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.

The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for

preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self- enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to State autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.

It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an ``adequate'' Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States' rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.

It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read'' It's ten o'clock; do you know where your children are?'' I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads'' It's ten o'clock; does the Federal Government know where your children are.'' Further socializing and burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.

For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, S. 403.